Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

The Bigger Hoax: Green Jobs or Balloon Boy?

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
28,814
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Oct 28, 2009

http://www.AmericanSolutions.com/energytax

Breaking news: The cap and trade balloon, which had promised to deliver 1.7 million new green jobs, lands with no jobs inside. In fact, cap and trade will actually destroy jobs.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 4 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • Time to put a cap and trade on Congress! Can we send them overseas?

  • We have a Congress that is out of touch with the USA, at my house I can not afford any more experiments with my tax dollars. Now if you want to be my guest. Hellooo... you can not just keep printing money like this administration is doing without inflation. The dollar is kinda like that balloon it will crash soon enough. Trillions of dollars of deficit , stimulus,health care ,cap and trade and you want to talk about rational people?Not in Congress.

Video Responses

see all

All Comments (37)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I was still waiting for shovel ready jobs

  • Fore "free-market" people, you don't seem to have much faith in the power of the market and viability of it. You guys are the real economic girliemen.

  • Face it, you guys are full of it on this. And besides, job losses happen all the time! People get jobs, and some lose em. And big businesses in a few years or so will be easily able to afford technology necessary to reduce emissions and sell off the credits. They won't have to cut MILLIONS of jobs in a very short time period. You guys talk a big game about how "vibrant" the free market is (and I agree), but then you bitch nonstop about every regulation, as if the sky is gonna fall.

  • The National Association of Manufacturers ad gets the trend line right by predicting job losses, but strains the evidence as to the magnitude. The 2.4 million figure might turn out to be true but only under the most negative set of assumptions. And EIA says those assumptions are "inherently less likely" than other scenarios.

  • You conservative pro-market groups are so full of it. It's obvious you got your heads up businesses's ass instead of being pro-truth and fact.

  • The 2.5 million jobs that will be "killed" by this bill will NOT be immediate! I mean, come on. The jobs even affected by CO2 emissions cuts would be only a fraction of all teh jobs lost monthly. And the highest per-month we've lost so far in this recession is about 650,000. So it would take pretty damn long for these "2.5 million killed jobs" by cap and trade to materialize. Get real, AS.

  • The EIAs view is echoed by the CBO. In a report released in September CBO noted that the House bill would create both winners and losers. And on Oct. 14, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and said that total employment would likely decline by only "a little" as labor markets adjusted.

  • We should note that under some of the scenarios analyzed, EIA projected that total employment might increase by a small amount during the early years of a cap-and-trade program. For example, in the "basic" case, EIA found that employment might increase by about 96,000 jobs in 2012, 42,000 jobs in 2019 and 266,000 jobs in 2024, before ending with a loss of 597,000 in 2030.

  • EIA projects 597,000 fewer jobs in 2030 than under current policy. EIAs most optimistic projection, a "high technology" case that assumes "more aggressive assumptions about technological improvements" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, would lead to job reductions of only 388,000, or 0.2 percent.

  • And the CBO also concluded that cost increases for some families, at least, could be offset if revenues from the allowances were returned to consumers. In his testimony, Dinan said that a 2000 CBO study "concluded that lower-income households could be better off as a result of the policy (even without including any benefits from reducing climate change) if the government chose to sell the allowances and use the revenue to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household in the United States."

Loading...

0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more